Sayed Khabbir Hassan v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2092 of 2015 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7656 of 2013 ====================================================== Sayed Khabbir Hassan S/o Late Sayed Shabbir Hassan Resident of Village Brahmpura Siya Masjid, Police Station Brahmpura, District Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Mr. Navin Kumar, the Chief Engineer, Building Construction Division, Muzaffarpur.

3. Mr. B.P. Singh, the Superintending Engineer, Building Construction Division, Muzaffarpur.

4. Mr. Sri Niwas, the Executive Engineer, Building Construction Division, Muzaffarpur.

.... .... Opposite Parties =================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pancham Lal Jaiswal For the State Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, SC-4 M.N. Roy, AC to SC-4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 10-05-2017 Heard both sides.

The application alleges wilful/deliberate violation/disobedience of the order dated 22.08.2013 passed in CWJC No. 7656 of 2013 and its analogous writ petition. Operative part/portion of the said order reads as under:- "Regard being had to above, this Court would permit the petitioner to approach the concerned authority by filing representation for redressal of the grievance(s).

If any such application/representation supported by all documents is/are filed before the concerned authority within three weeks, the concerned authority shall examine the same and take

Patna High Court MJC No.2092 of 2015 (3) dt.10-05-2017 2/2 appropriate decision thereon in accordance with law expeditiously.

Let it be recorded that it is agreed at Bar that the representation in the light of the present order should be filed/made before the Chief Engineer of the concerned Department."

It is submitted by the petitioner that the said order has not been complied with.

Learned counsel for the opposite parties has drawn attention of the Court to the representation filed by the petitioner in the light of the said order of the Court which is placed at page 10 of the brief. Without raising any claim stating relevant facts, the representation states that the Court has directed for payment of the legal dues of he petitioner.

Considering the nature of the order the Court passed on the writ petition and the contents of the representation made by the petitioner in consequence thereof, in the considered view of the Court, no case for contempt is made out. The contempt application is dismissed.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) HR/- U